The Atlanta Urban Debate League is committed to providing excellent debate education programs, services, and opportunities to diverse students, educators, and members of the community!
Counterplans: STOP and Think
Learning Objectives
Introduce strategies for answering counterplans.
Time Needed
~15-20 min.
Resources & Materials
Paper (2-3 sheets per student)
Pencil/pen (1 per student)
Teacher Preparation
- Come up with a hypothetical affirmative plan and 2-3 counterplans for it.
- Try to come up with 2 generic counterplans and 1 that is more distinct in how it solves.
- Generic counterplans typically do the same action as the plan but with a slight change, such as having the 50 states or the president (via executive order) do the plan.
- Try to come up with 2 generic counterplans and 1 that is more distinct in how it solves.
Lesson Outline
- Introducing STOP
- Explain that there are 4 strategies for answering counterplans as the affirmative:
- Solvency deficit: Arguments that the CP doesn’t solve the affirmative’s harms/advantages.
- Theory: Arguments that the counterplan is bad for debate and should not be rewarded with the judge’s vote. These arguments often focus on fairness and/or the educational value of debate being compromised.
- Offense: Arguments that the counterplan will have negative consequences (similar to how the negative highlights consequences to the affirmative plan).
- Permutation: Advocates a combination of the affirmative plan and negative counterplan.
- Explain that there are 4 strategies for answering counterplans as the affirmative:
- STOP and Think (Activity)
- Divide students into 4 groups and assign each one a part of STOP.
- Give students time (~7-10 minutes) to come up with responses to the counterplans using their assigned part of STOP.
- Check in with groups while they work. Use guiding questions if they struggle to come up with ideas.
- Solvency: Are there any leaps in logic that the counterplan makes? Does the counterplan omit some part of the affirmative plan that is key to solving?
- Theory: Do the generic counterplans really add much to debate in terms of education? Is it fair for the negative to steal parts of the affirmative’s plan and win?
- Offense: What are the unintended consequences of the counterplan? Is it just as guilty as the plan of causing/linking to something? Does it somehow cause the very problem the plan was trying to solve?
- Permutation: Is there anything stopping the judge from agreeing with both the plan and counterplan? Does doing one first make the other more feasible? Does the counterplan ultimately result in the plan happening anyway?
- Have students select a representative to present their groups’ responses to the counterplans.
Points of Improvement
Students struggle to come up with more than one argument for a part of STOP.
Signs of Mastery
Students come up with multiple responses to counterplans.
The theory group can come up with at least one argument based on education and one based on fairness.
Instructor Notes
It can be hard to come up with theory arguments if there are no generic counterplans. Be sure to include CPs that incorporate elements of the affirmative plan.